The High Court
Case Details
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK RVWPET No.286 of 2022 Ramesha Chandra Pradhan ….. Petitioner Mr. Rajjeet Roy, Advocate -versus- M/s. Jaikisan Dasmall Jute Products Pvt. Ltd. ..... Opp. Party CORAM: THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE S.K. SAHOO THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE R.K. PATTANAIK Order No. ORDER 26.07.2024 01. This matter is taken up through Hybrid arrangement (video conferencing/physical mode).
Legal Reasoning
The petitioner approached this Court in W.P. (C) No. 2787 of 2011 challenging the adequacy of the amount of Rs.25,000/- (rupees twenty five thousand) awarded to him in lieu of reinstatement by the learned Labour Court, Bhubaneswar by order dated 13.04.2010 in I.D. Case No.188 of 1991. After hearing the learned counsel for both the parties, this Court was of the view that the compensation amount ought to have been Rs.50,000/- and accordingly, by order dated 30.03.2022 disposed of the writ petition by modifying the impugned award Page 1 of 7 directing that since the opposite party-Management has already paid Rs.25,000/-, the remaining sum of Rs.25,000/- will be paid to the petitioner-workman within eight weeks. It seems that the petitioner challenged the order passed by this Court before the Hon‟ble Supreme Court in S.L.P.(Civil) No. 12634 of 2022 and vide order
Arguments
Heard Mr. Rajjeet Roy, learned counsel for the petitioner.
Decision
dated 12.08.2022, the same came to be disposed of with the following observation: “xx xx xx xx xx The Special Leave Petitions stand disposed of permitting the petitioner to move in review seeking the higher amount indicated namely in the range of Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees One Lakh Only) in place of the amount of Rs.50,000/- (Rupees Fifty Thousand Only) which is awarded by the High Court. Accordingly, pending application(s), if any, stand disposed of.” Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that in similar cases, higher amount has been awarded. Be that as it may, law is well settled that review is not re-hearing of an original matter. The power of review cannot be exercised as an inherent power and can only be invoked for the correction of a mistake and not to substitute a view. Every error whether factual or legal cannot be made subject matter of review under Order 47 Rule 1 of CPC. To appreciate the principles governing the Page 2 of 7 power of review under the CPC in the correct perspective, it would be beneficial for us to reproduce the very provision, which reads as follows: person 1. Application for review of judgment.— considering himself (1) Any aggrieved— (a) by a decree or order from which an appeal is allowed, but from which no appeal has been preferred, (b) by a decree or order from which no appeal is allowed, or (c) by a decision on a reference from a Court of Small Causes, and who, from the discovery of new and important matter or evidence which, after the exercise of due diligence was not within his knowledge or could not be produced by him at the time when the decree was passed or order made, or on account of some mistake or error apparent on the face of the record or for any other sufficient reason, desires to obtain a review of the decree passed or order made against him, may apply for a review of judgment to the Court which passed the decree or made the order. (Emphasis added) From the terminology of the above provision, it is apparent that to invoke the review jurisdiction, the concerned person must show either a new or important matter or evidence which was not within his knowledge or the same could not be produced before the Court when Page 3 of 7 the decree was made. The aforesaid jurisdiction can also be put to use when it is shown that the Court passed the impugned decree/order on account of some „error apparent‟ or „mistake‟. Review of a decree/order passed by a Court of competent jurisdiction cannot be sought as a matter of right. The right to get a decree/order reviewed is subject to the condition that the aggrieved person shows any new matter or evidence, which was not within his knowledge even after exercising due diligence or if he points out any „error apparent‟ or „mistake‟. The Hon‟ble Apex Court in the case of Lily Thomas -Vrs.- Union of India reported in (2000) 6 Supreme Court Cases 224 held that the „error‟ contemplated under the rule must be such which is apparent on the face of the record and not an error which has to be fished out and searched. It must be an error of inadvertence. In other words, in order to attract the provisions of Order 47 Rule 1 of CPC, the error/mistake must be apparent on the face of the record. In the case of Parsion Devi and Ors. -Vrs.- Sumitri Devi and Ors. reported in (1997) 8 Supreme Court Cases 715, the Hon‟ble Supreme Court held as under: “9. Under Order 47 Rule 1 Code of Civil Procedure, a judgment may be open to review, inter alia, if there is a mistake or an error Page 4 of 7 apparent on the face of the record. An error which is not self-evident and has to be detected by a process of reasoning, can hardly be said to be an error apparent on the face of the record justifying the Court to exercise its power of review under Order 47 Rule 1 Code of Civil Procedure. In exercise of the jurisdiction under Order 47 Rule 1 Code of Civil Procedure, it is not permissible for an erroneous decision to be "reheard and corrected". A review petition, it must be remembered has a limited purpose and cannot be allowed to be "an appeal in disguise.” In Haridas Das -Vrs.- Usha Rani Banik (Smt.) and Ors. reported in (2006) 4 Supreme Court Cases 78, the Hon‟ble Supreme Court held as follows: “13....The parameters are prescribed in Order 47 Code of Civil Procedure and for the purposes of this lis, permit the defendant to press for a rehearing "on account of some mistake or error apparent on the face of the records or for any other sufficient reason". The former part of the Rule deals with a situation attributable to the applicant, and the latter to a jural action which is manifestly incorrect or on which two conclusions are not possible. Neither of them postulate a rehearing of the dispute because a party had not Page 5 of 7 highlighted all the aspects of the case or could perhaps have argued them more forcefully and/or cited binding precedents to the Court and thereby enjoyed a favourable verdict. This is amply evident from the Explanation to Rule 1 of Order 47 which states that the fact that the decision on a question of law on which the judgment of the Court is based has been reversed or modified by the subsequent decision of a superior court in any other case, shall not be a ground for the review of such judgment. Where the order in question is appealable, the aggrieved party has adequate and efficacious remedy and the Court should exercise the power to review its order with the greatest circumspection....” In the case of State of West Bengal and Ors. -Vrs.- Kamal Sengupta and Anr. reported in (2008) 8 Supreme Court Cases 612, the Hon‟ble Supreme Court held as follows: “21. At this stage, it is apposite to observe that where a review is sought on the ground of discovery of new matter or evidence, such matter or evidence must be relevant and must be of such a character that if the same had been produced, it might have altered the judgment. In other words, mere discovery of new or Page 6 of 7 important matter or evidence is not sufficient ground for review ex debito justitiae. Not only this, the party seeking review has also to show that such additional matter or evidence was not within its knowledge and even after the exercise of due diligence, the same could not be produced before the Court earlier.” After going through the impugned order under review, we do not find any error apparent on the face of record nor do we find any new matter or evidence which the review petitioner could not have produced before the Court below even after exercising „due diligence‟. Therefore, we are not inclined to entertain this review petition. Accordingly, the review petition stands dismissed. Pending interim application also stands dismissed. Judge ( S.K. Sahoo) Judge (R.K. Pattnaik) PKSahoo Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: PRAMOD KUMAR SAHOO Designation: Secretary Reason: Authentication Location: HIGH COURT OF ORISSA Date: 29-Jul-2024 17:34:50 Page 7 of 7